See, it's not the fact that you're against social engineering that makes you a racist. It's the fact that you chose to use this forum to attempt to display your hatred for social engineering. It's the fact that you chose to talk about race in your out-of-place hatred of social engineering. It's the fact that, instead of talking about 3D technology, you're stuck talking about how you're not a racist. Just face it. You're a racist. Most of us are, especially those of us who come from small towns where racial integration is basically nonexistant. When I think back to my time in elementary and high school and can think of the one black kid in any of my classes, you'll understand if I unintentionally treat people of different races differently, even if it's because I'm trying so hard not to.
Instead of trying so hard to deny that you're racist, you can be like me and try to fix it. Then you can talk about cool new 3D technology and how amazing it is.
PS. I just graduated high school 6 years ago. I'm not thinking back to the 60's, just to the earlier part of this decade. Also, I wasted mod points to post this response and fully expect to be rated down as off-topic. I just feel that it is that important to respond.
The problem is how you decide who is a good homeschooler. For every good homeschool student, there are many bad ones. Most of the homeschool students I knew had parents who couldn't handle disciplining their child, so their children just refused to go to school.
Yes, there are parents who do well in teaching their kids how to thrive in the real world, but I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more who are doing little more than leading their children to a life of menial labor.
I may be wrong but I think the important thing to remember is that they are paying $21 billion for the development of this space power power plant. If history tells us anything about innovation it's that innovation is costly, but the rewards can be great. Once they get this off the ground, how much will the next one cost? And the one after that? That's the important issue.
On top of that, the article is called "OS deathmatch," yet the author cannot decide who wins. What the hell kind of crap is that? It's like he brings a couple gladiators together and they end up holding hands.
Except that their are also reports of iPhones exploding in the the Netherlands and Belgium, plus, apparently, the UK and the US, but you're right, it is just a "localized" problem and probably not Apple's fault.
What you're saying is that sitting on your phones was something completely unpredictable by Apple and therefore Apple shouldn't be held responsible. This is completely ass-backwards. If Apple didn't know that people would put the phones in their pocket, then Apple is run by idiots. If Apple did know and didn't design the phone to withstand that sort of use, then Apple is run by idiots. Since I don't believe that Apple is run by a bunch of idiots, I have to dismiss these first two possibilities.
What I believe is far more likely is that Apple just didn't do a good enough job. I don't fault them for this. They are putting out a serious piece of technology and to have a small oversight is completely acceptable. What I do not find acceptable, however, is that they can't own up to it and accept that their phones are indeed exploding where others do not seem to have the same problem. Instead of addressing and fixing the problem, they are just having a "blamestorming session," to steal a term. And this is only after trying to deny it and cover it up completely. That's bad. Very bad.
I've long held a similar belief about most crimes. Why should the inept murderer be punished differently because he failed to kill his target? Either he intended to do it or he didn't. It's the intent that matters most, not the result.
Then again, I believe that's a fundamental flaw in the way many people think. They tend to believe that a decision is justified by it's results, whereas, in fact, a decision is justified solely by the process used to arrive at that decision. Either the process is flawed or it isn't, and results are often somewhat random.
One thing to consider is that advertisers are already adapting to the use of DVRs. Yes, they still have commercials, but there is also a considerable amount of product placement. Consider the NBC show "Chuck" and its Subway product placement. Before the "Save Chuck" campaign even started, Subway maintained that this was their best product placement/commercial deal in years. It was well placed and quite amusing.
And guess who saw it. It wasn't just the old fogies who refuse to move into the modern age, but also the younger generation with our newfangled DVRs and PCs.
This is why having ALL of the ratings is important. Just because DVRs exclude most of the commercials, that doesn't mean that these viewers aren't important to the show's advertisers. The advertisers would just have to push into new ways of advertising outside of the standard commercial.
PS. I'll gladly sacrifice 2 minutes an episode to gain the 58 minutes of hilarity that is Chuck.
PPS. I know that the episode isn't really an hour long and that a bunch of time is cut out for commercials, but that's not the point.
So what you're saying is that there should be some sort of larger moderation system in order to moderate the editors. Maybe we could call these editor-moderators "metamoderators." Then these so-called "metamoderators" could help to keep the editors biases in check. But how could they implement such a system?
Now people will assume it's no big deal if someone bumps into them. They'll be less guarded because they think that it could be a so-called "putpocket" instead of a pickpocket. Bad idea.
There is ample evidence on Slashdot, if you're not too lazy to look,* of armchair lawyers coming up with perfectly reasonable precedents that the courts seemingly refused to cite in their decisions. Just because the precedent is there and seemingly applicable doesn't mean the court will follow it.
This article is wrong on so many levels, but, of course, is easy to defeat: Everyone knows that the Star Wars universe is perfect. George Lucas had fully anticipated exactly what was going to happen in all 6 movies (and all of the books, comics, cartoons, etc.) while designing the first movie. To question this is heresy, and therefore you, John Scalzi, are a heretic.
Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat. Does it really take that much effort to grab the cable and plug it in? Also, in the case of cell phones, you wouldn't be able to use the cell phone while it's charging like most cell phones allow you to do currently. Win = Power cord.
Now, the other technology that was mentioned in the article uses electromagnetic fields. This seems like it would be incredibly inefficient as you would be beaming energy to nothing in particular in hopes that something was using it. With this technology, you wouldn't have to leave your mobile device on a mat, but you would still need to be within 2m of the source. It still seems like a traditional power cord wins.
Now, I know that Slashdot is all about advancing technology, but how do they get over these hurdles? It seems like developing a universal wired charging station would be more advantageous in the short run. What am I missing?
Definitely a proper handling of the situation. Tit for Tat has proven to be an effective strategy. He was a jerk, so you get to be a jerk. It teaches him not to be a jerk (or at the very least, discourages others from being jerks). I just wish Wal-Mart had understood that while I worked there. We had some real bastards come in and see what they could get away with.
"To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others."
I think that this project is doing a disservice to the understanding of evil. Sure, an evil person may intentionally do harm to someone, but an evil person may also not care that their decisions are negatively affecting those around them. To paraphrase St. Augustine, Evil isn't the opposite of good, but merely the lack of good. Who's more evil? Someone who maliciously kills one person, or someone who, through the consequences of his actions, kills thousands or millions?
Take Hitler. He didn't want to harm "innocent" people, but rather he felt that the Jews as a whole were guilty of some crime and should all be punished and destroyed. Hitler, by the definition given, was not evil. He felt that the Jews (and political enemies) had done harm to him and therefore he was just punishing them. Any definition which could possibly exclude Hitler from being evil is a bad one, IMO.
I think the big thing to remember is that the 25% reversion rate doesn't directly imply that 25% of your changes will likely be reverted. In fact, assuming that you aren't an idiot/troll/flamer, it implies that less than 25% of your changes will be reverted. There are so many asshats out there, though, who make stupid changes, that the number becomes bloated.
Another thing to remember is that with experience, you are less likely to make mistakes that will lead to reversion. Even if you make a decent contribution, if it isn't formatted properly or contains grammatical errors, it will be reverted. What would be a far more interesting number would be the MEDIAN reversion rate by user. This would help eliminate the upward bias caused by trolls and show what sort of reversion rate that a "typical" user could expect.
That doesn't mean that it is not interesting to attempt to see the thought processes that went into the attempted creation of that one blockbuster. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the rest of us are all curmudgeons.
The irony with the DDoS is that all of the people constantly attempting to access twitter just to see if it is back up are actually making the process worse. Kind of funny, if you ask me.
Is it just me, or is all of this acrimony actually fear of this working? With ownership in major news organizations like the The Times, Wall Street Journal and Fox News, among others, millions already access his sites religiously. Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason, so you know he and his people have done considerable analysis before coming to this decision. I think, deep down, most of you secretly acknowledge that this could actually work, and that fear is driving all of the dismissive comments more than an actual belief that this will fail.
Slashdot Mirror
See, it's not the fact that you're against social engineering that makes you a racist. It's the fact that you chose to use this forum to attempt to display your hatred for social engineering. It's the fact that you chose to talk about race in your out-of-place hatred of social engineering. It's the fact that, instead of talking about 3D technology, you're stuck talking about how you're not a racist. Just face it. You're a racist. Most of us are, especially those of us who come from small towns where racial integration is basically nonexistant. When I think back to my time in elementary and high school and can think of the one black kid in any of my classes, you'll understand if I unintentionally treat people of different races differently, even if it's because I'm trying so hard not to.
Instead of trying so hard to deny that you're racist, you can be like me and try to fix it. Then you can talk about cool new 3D technology and how amazing it is.
PS. I just graduated high school 6 years ago. I'm not thinking back to the 60's, just to the earlier part of this decade. Also, I wasted mod points to post this response and fully expect to be rated down as off-topic. I just feel that it is that important to respond.
Nope.
The problem is how you decide who is a good homeschooler. For every good homeschool student, there are many bad ones. Most of the homeschool students I knew had parents who couldn't handle disciplining their child, so their children just refused to go to school.
Yes, there are parents who do well in teaching their kids how to thrive in the real world, but I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more who are doing little more than leading their children to a life of menial labor.
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
So if the 4th charge is dropped and he is freed, can they keep him jailed? He could, at that point, still cause the same damage that he can now.
I may be wrong but I think the important thing to remember is that they are paying $21 billion for the development of this space power power plant. If history tells us anything about innovation it's that innovation is costly, but the rewards can be great. Once they get this off the ground, how much will the next one cost? And the one after that? That's the important issue.
On top of that, the article is called "OS deathmatch," yet the author cannot decide who wins. What the hell kind of crap is that? It's like he brings a couple gladiators together and they end up holding hands.
Lame.
single digit reports, all in one country
Except that their are also reports of iPhones exploding in the the Netherlands and Belgium, plus, apparently, the UK and the US, but you're right, it is just a "localized" problem and probably not Apple's fault.
What you're saying is that sitting on your phones was something completely unpredictable by Apple and therefore Apple shouldn't be held responsible. This is completely ass-backwards. If Apple didn't know that people would put the phones in their pocket, then Apple is run by idiots. If Apple did know and didn't design the phone to withstand that sort of use, then Apple is run by idiots. Since I don't believe that Apple is run by a bunch of idiots, I have to dismiss these first two possibilities.
What I believe is far more likely is that Apple just didn't do a good enough job. I don't fault them for this. They are putting out a serious piece of technology and to have a small oversight is completely acceptable. What I do not find acceptable, however, is that they can't own up to it and accept that their phones are indeed exploding where others do not seem to have the same problem. Instead of addressing and fixing the problem, they are just having a "blamestorming session," to steal a term. And this is only after trying to deny it and cover it up completely. That's bad. Very bad.
I've long held a similar belief about most crimes. Why should the inept murderer be punished differently because he failed to kill his target? Either he intended to do it or he didn't. It's the intent that matters most, not the result.
Then again, I believe that's a fundamental flaw in the way many people think. They tend to believe that a decision is justified by it's results, whereas, in fact, a decision is justified solely by the process used to arrive at that decision. Either the process is flawed or it isn't, and results are often somewhat random.
One thing to consider is that advertisers are already adapting to the use of DVRs. Yes, they still have commercials, but there is also a considerable amount of product placement. Consider the NBC show "Chuck" and its Subway product placement. Before the "Save Chuck" campaign even started, Subway maintained that this was their best product placement/commercial deal in years. It was well placed and quite amusing.
And guess who saw it. It wasn't just the old fogies who refuse to move into the modern age, but also the younger generation with our newfangled DVRs and PCs.
This is why having ALL of the ratings is important. Just because DVRs exclude most of the commercials, that doesn't mean that these viewers aren't important to the show's advertisers. The advertisers would just have to push into new ways of advertising outside of the standard commercial.
PS. I'll gladly sacrifice 2 minutes an episode to gain the 58 minutes of hilarity that is Chuck.
PPS. I know that the episode isn't really an hour long and that a bunch of time is cut out for commercials, but that's not the point.
QUICK! Find some porn and sell it to a 7 year old! We've only got 3 months here, guys!
So what you're saying is that there should be some sort of larger moderation system in order to moderate the editors. Maybe we could call these editor-moderators "metamoderators." Then these so-called "metamoderators" could help to keep the editors biases in check. But how could they implement such a system?
. . .
Now people will assume it's no big deal if someone bumps into them. They'll be less guarded because they think that it could be a so-called "putpocket" instead of a pickpocket. Bad idea.
There is ample evidence on Slashdot, if you're not too lazy to look,* of armchair lawyers coming up with perfectly reasonable precedents that the courts seemingly refused to cite in their decisions. Just because the precedent is there and seemingly applicable doesn't mean the court will follow it.
*I am
This article is wrong on so many levels, but, of course, is easy to defeat: Everyone knows that the Star Wars universe is perfect. George Lucas had fully anticipated exactly what was going to happen in all 6 movies (and all of the books, comics, cartoons, etc.) while designing the first movie. To question this is heresy, and therefore you, John Scalzi, are a heretic.
Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat. Does it really take that much effort to grab the cable and plug it in? Also, in the case of cell phones, you wouldn't be able to use the cell phone while it's charging like most cell phones allow you to do currently. Win = Power cord.
Now, the other technology that was mentioned in the article uses electromagnetic fields. This seems like it would be incredibly inefficient as you would be beaming energy to nothing in particular in hopes that something was using it. With this technology, you wouldn't have to leave your mobile device on a mat, but you would still need to be within 2m of the source. It still seems like a traditional power cord wins.
Now, I know that Slashdot is all about advancing technology, but how do they get over these hurdles? It seems like developing a universal wired charging station would be more advantageous in the short run. What am I missing?
Definitely a proper handling of the situation. Tit for Tat has proven to be an effective strategy. He was a jerk, so you get to be a jerk. It teaches him not to be a jerk (or at the very least, discourages others from being jerks). I just wish Wal-Mart had understood that while I worked there. We had some real bastards come in and see what they could get away with.
This.
"To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others."
I think that this project is doing a disservice to the understanding of evil. Sure, an evil person may intentionally do harm to someone, but an evil person may also not care that their decisions are negatively affecting those around them. To paraphrase St. Augustine, Evil isn't the opposite of good, but merely the lack of good. Who's more evil? Someone who maliciously kills one person, or someone who, through the consequences of his actions, kills thousands or millions?
Take Hitler. He didn't want to harm "innocent" people, but rather he felt that the Jews as a whole were guilty of some crime and should all be punished and destroyed. Hitler, by the definition given, was not evil. He felt that the Jews (and political enemies) had done harm to him and therefore he was just punishing them. Any definition which could possibly exclude Hitler from being evil is a bad one, IMO.
I think the big thing to remember is that the 25% reversion rate doesn't directly imply that 25% of your changes will likely be reverted. In fact, assuming that you aren't an idiot/troll/flamer, it implies that less than 25% of your changes will be reverted. There are so many asshats out there, though, who make stupid changes, that the number becomes bloated.
Another thing to remember is that with experience, you are less likely to make mistakes that will lead to reversion. Even if you make a decent contribution, if it isn't formatted properly or contains grammatical errors, it will be reverted. What would be a far more interesting number would be the MEDIAN reversion rate by user. This would help eliminate the upward bias caused by trolls and show what sort of reversion rate that a "typical" user could expect.
Who are we supposed to favor in this fight? Microsoft or the patent troll?
I can't quite figure it out myself.
That doesn't mean that it is not interesting to attempt to see the thought processes that went into the attempted creation of that one blockbuster. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the rest of us are all curmudgeons.
. . . would be for them to design products that better withstand extreme temperatures, water immersion and shocks.
The irony with the DDoS is that all of the people constantly attempting to access twitter just to see if it is back up are actually making the process worse. Kind of funny, if you ask me.
Is it just me, or is all of this acrimony actually fear of this working? With ownership in major news organizations like the The Times, Wall Street Journal and Fox News, among others, millions already access his sites religiously. Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason, so you know he and his people have done considerable analysis before coming to this decision. I think, deep down, most of you secretly acknowledge that this could actually work, and that fear is driving all of the dismissive comments more than an actual belief that this will fail.